Minutes of the September 20, 2001 Joint Meeting of OAC and Campus Liaisons

MS Word version (53K)

Round Robin to Report on Status of the CMI Project on Each Campus

All campuses stated their readiness to launch on October 1, 2001. Campuses reported on the status of their progress in a round robin:

1. Berkeley
   Although the Science Libraries were a bit hesitant about participating as Experimental four of the science libraries are participating as Control sites. The method of gathering Control data is different, with Physics using the bar code method and the other libraries using manual methods. Experimental titles in the business and main library may be kept in local storage. Requested that the database reflect a more accurate volume count.
   
   
2. Davis
   Experimental volumes are being kept on site; estimate that there will be a fifteen-minute to two-hour wait for paged material. Only sending letters to science faculty since they are primarily affected. All public service desks have been trained and counting will be done electronically. Unique signage with URL's for journals are being deployed.
   
   
3. Irvine
   Majority of the titles are in the science library, with five titles in the medical library; all have been removed. Providing a general URL to the library rather then specific URL to the journal site. Local records have been changed to indicate storage. A public information page has been created to support the project locally. Bibliographers are sending letters to faculty. The current periodical room has some questions. Requested that a FAQ on the "moving wall" and receipt/handling of current issue be developed. Suggested that campuses using the Innovative system share information on its use to gather and report data.
   
   
4. Los Angeles
   Interested in how titles changes will be handled: for example, MLN. All records have been annotated. Both the Undergraduate and College Library are serving as control for MLN. Is there is any issue with this or is it an opportunity for some special study?
   
   
5. Riverside
   Labeling of shelves and volumes completed with a few exceptions awaiting clarification. Reiterated the question concerning the handling of current issues and the impact on data from the moving wall and retrospective conversions becoming available. Suggested an important research question is user satisfaction with differing lengths of time for delivery.
   
   
6. San Francisco
   Storing new issues locally or sending them to NRLF is still unresolved. The library list serve has been used to announce the project. This strategy has already elicited several responses from faculty.
   
   
7. Santa Barbara
   The library chose to participate by storing only experimental journals. Approximately 42 JSTOR journal backruns from the Science and Engineering Library will be relocated to a local storage facility off campus. The library is reserving only a foot and half of shelf space to indicate to users with signs and handouts that journals have been relocated to storage. Retrieval is twice a day during the week and once a day on weekends. A master list of campus titles with their URL has been assembled for easy staff reference and a CMI web site <http://www.library.ucsb.edu/cmi/> has been created and linked to the library's web site, InfoSurf.
   
   
8. Santa Cruz
   A complaint has been received already concerning Tetrahedron Letters. How should these comments be recorded? Could an FAQ be developed on this topic? Also using the Innovative system to gather data and would like to partner with others so that a solution is not reinvented by each campus. Pointed out that the earlier information can be forthcoming it would help in the cancellation process. Already have plans to cancel Elsevier, Springer and Kluwer paper journals as of December 2002.
   
   
9. San Diego
   Have decided to limit publicity to participating libraries and their respective faculty. Have placed pamphlet boxes at shelf locations containing handouts on journal specific information, URL's and the CMI project. Experimental tiles are being stored in the library annex and current issues will be stored behind the desks. Consider developing guidelines to address administering and capturing surveys in the cases of local and multiple storage sites.
   
   
10. NRLF
    Have received over 2,300 volumes so far, but are not labeling until an actual request for circulation is made. Will be labeling and banding delivered items. Have developed a form and tracking log with reference numbers to facilitate matching requests with returned surveys. Will receive unbound issues from campuses to address current issue storage. Would like some guidelines developed giving more information on the return of surveys (e.g., when to send to CMI, who will be taking the lead in following up on surveys not returned).
    
    
11. SLRF
    Have received over 1,700 bound volumes and pieces. Are planning to use a colored paper for the survey to help it stand out. Are also planning to use a distinctive blue tape and band on return items to help with the return process.

Agreement that CMI would prepare campus checklist for readiness for the start of data collection.

Agreement that campuses would provide copies of campus informational materials including project web sites.

Agreement that CMI will investigate placing links to campus web pages related to CMI.

Agreement that volumes will not be added to the date-range of study titles after October 1, 2001, but especially in the case of retrospective additions, handling of this issue may depend on the nature of publisher data.

Guidelines for Phase II

1. Method for Determining Shelf Space Vacated by Experimental Volumes
   Specifics about what is measured are needed. Questions raised included:
   
   
   1. On campuses with multiple subscriptions will a measurement of one bound set be made and then multiplied by the number of copies?
      
   2. Will the number of copies be factored into the space savings?
      
   3. How about a before and after measurement to demonstrate the increase in space over time?
      
   4. Should a general measurement be developed through a special study? For example, for runs longer than 10(?) years, could a separate count and measurement for the most recent 2(?) years of bound volumes serve as an accurate sample and time saving device?
      
   5. What is actually being counted, volumes or physical pieces?
      
   6. Will only bound volumes be counted and measured?
      
   
   Agreement that a FAQ and possibly a worksheet with instructions would be developed.
   
   
2. Survey Form
   General consensus that the guidelines need to be expanded on the topic of instructing staff on the gathering and returning of surveys. Ideas included:
   
   
   1. Reminder to fill in title information on the survey before delivery
      
   2. Check off or tracking method on how the survey was delivered, desktop scan, paper with copy, pare with bound journal.
      
   3. A section on the form identifying the originating library, and possible comment space for that library.
      
   4. Explicit statement that non-UC requests need to be captured and surveyed also.
      
   5. Plan for the implementation of "Arial" and possible impacts on project.
      
   6. Could library staff to record reference encounters and other user feedback channels use the response categories from the recalled volumes survey?
      
   
   Agreement to revise the survey as discussed and redistribute for review.
   
   Agreement that recording of use and administration of survey is to be the responsibility of the Storage Location.
   
   Agreement that where a campus has multiple Storage Locations (i.e., when current issues are stored separately from bound volumes), the campus undertakes the responsibility to ensure that each storage location will execute its responsibilities for use recording and survey administration.
   
   Agreement that the storage location will complete journal data and method of delivery before sending the survey instrument.
   
   Agreement to collect copies of campus request forms; review for completeness/adequacy of data elements.
   
   
3. Frequency of Reporting Use Data
   Acknowledgment and planning for the differences in methods of collecting data and the volume of titles needs to be made in the schedule. For example, UCI and UCR are using manual methods and have a large number of control titles, as opposed to other campuses that have either an electronic system or fewer titles. Consensus was expressed for a plan of quarterly reports with the hope that the quarters would be defined by the campus quarter system calendar. This would allow for more effective use of student staff. A possible schedule for use data collection was suggested for consideration.
   
   
   1. Campuses that count manually (Use Data Slips) would do so in Winter (ca. January 2002) and Spring (ca. March-April 2002), only for the most recent five years of the title. In Summer (ca. June-July 2002) and at end (ca. October 2002), there would be a count of all years.
      
   2. Campuses that count using their circulation system collect data quarterly, using same approximate schedule, subject to publisher data production time frames. Note: requires coordination with individual campuses.
      
   3. Validating the "most recent five years" data collection practice for manual campuses could be achieved using data from "automated" campuses. Also there is the possibility of conducting a special study in Winter or Spring to validate this sampling strategy.

Update on Database of Paired Titles

Keeping the database updated is challenging, as it is currently a moving target. It is, however, a very useful tool for staff.

Agreement to post the subject classification/subclassification table, solicit corrections from campuses.

Agreement to review handling of mismatches of electronic back files with print holdings.

Update on CMI Staff and Public Web Sites

The staff web site is live and can be accessed at <http://www.ucop.edu/cmi/staff> [note: as of September 2003, staff and public web sites have been integrated]. The public site is under construction and is planned to go live for the October kickoff.

Subgrants and Methods for Reporting Costs

Open discussion for comments:

1. There does not seem to be adequate allowance in the subgrant model for the amount of coordination and collaboration that the CL and OAC engaged. Should a flat administrative cost be added for this?
   
   
2. Multi-campus coordination is both a research cost and an ongoing cost. Is this factored into the analysis and recommendations?
   
   
3. Is the per-unit cost for labeling of volumes too low? Where did it come from? It seemed to take significant amounts of effort and time that are not reflected in this model.
   
   
4. With what frequency will costs be reported?
   
   
5. The sheets as provided are complex and would benefit from more explanation and instructions.
   
   
6. The volume estimate seems low could they be modified in number and more well defined? (Note: UCI claims 1,200 volumes; UCSC 1,600 pieces Experimental)
   
   
7. It is cumbersome for all campuses to gather cost data; would it be possible to collect data from selected (volunteering) campuses as special studies, based on requirements of the research plan?

Agreement that campuses would be solicited on additional categories of cost that should be recorded in Phase I Collection of campus actual work/cost data.

Agreement to modify the cost model with annotations, salary ranges supplied by UCOP (using 10-campus actual average salaries where available) and the addition of administrative staff (salary pegged at Admin Analyst) and non-salary costs. Circulate this new model prior to the October UL meeting.

Agreement to consult with BECS about delaying completion of campus subgrants to allow additional development, and consultation with UL's at October 25-26, 2001 UL Meeting.